Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Development and validation of the TabCAT-EXAMINER: A tablet-based executive functioning battery for research and clinical trials
Sanderson-Cimino M, Possin KL, Mungas DM, Paolillo EW, Asken BM, Tsoy E, Jarrott S, Cobigo Y et al.. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2025-03-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Executive Abilities: Measures and Instruments for Neurobehavioral Evaluation and Research (EXAMINER) is a validated laptop-based battery of executive functioning tests. A modified tablet version of the EXAMINER was developed on the UCSF Tablet-based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT-EXAMINER). Here we describe the battery and investigate the reliability and validity of a composite score. Methods A diagnostically heterogeneous sample of 2135 individuals (mean age = 65.58, SD = 16.07), including controls and participants with a variety of neurodegenerative syndromes, completed the TabCAT-EXAMINER. A composite score was developed using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Validity was evaluated via linear regressions that tested associations with neuropsychological tests, demographics, clinical diagnosis, and disease severity. Replicability of cross-sectional results was tested in a separate sample of participants ( n = 342) recruited from a frontotemporal dementia study. As this separate sample also collected longitudinal TabCAT-EXAMINER measures, we additionally assessed test-retest reliability and associations between baseline disease severity and changes in TabCAT-EXAMINER scores. Results The TabCAT-EXAMINER score was normally distributed, demonstrated high test-retest reliability, and was associated in the expected directions with independent tests of executive functioning, demographics, disease severity, and diagnosis. Greater baseline disease severity was associated with more rapid longitudinal TabCAT-EXAMINER decline. Conclusions The TabCAT-EXAMINER is a tablet-based executive functioning battery developed for observational research and clinical trials. Performance can be summarized as a single composite score, and results of this study support its reliability and validity in cognitive aging and neurodegenerative disease cohorts.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sanderson-Cimino, M., Possin, K. L., Mungas, D. M., Paolillo, E. W., Asken, B. M., Tsoy, E., et al. (2025). Development and validation of the TabCAT-EXAMINER: A tablet-based executive functioning battery for research and clinical trials. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617725000177
Vancouver
Sanderson-Cimino M, Possin KL, Mungas DM, Paolillo EW, Asken BM, Tsoy E, et al. Development and validation of the TabCAT-EXAMINER: A tablet-based executive functioning battery for research and clinical trials. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2025. doi:10.1017/s1355617725000177. PMID: 41165545.
BibTeX
@article{sandersoncimino2025-41165545,
author = {Sanderson-Cimino, M. and Possin, K. L. and Mungas, D. M. and Paolillo, E. W. and Asken, B. M. and Tsoy, E. and Jarrott, S. and Cobigo, Y. and others},
title = {{Development and validation of the TabCAT-EXAMINER: A tablet-based executive functioning battery for research and clinical trials}},
journal = {Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1017/s1355617725000177},
pmid = {41165545},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617725000177}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Replicability of cross-sectional results was tested in a separate sample of participants ( n = 342) recruited from a frontotemporal dementia study.
- Results The TabCAT-EXAMINER score was normally distributed, demonstrated high test-retest reliability, and was associated in the expected directions with independent tests of executive functioning, demographics, disease severity, and diagnosis.
- Greater baseline disease severity was associated with more rapid longitudinal TabCAT-EXAMINER decline.
- Performance can be summarized as a single composite score, and results of this study support its reliability and validity in cognitive aging and neurodegenerative disease cohorts.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants342
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 342 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41165545) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “clinical-trials”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “clinical-trials”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.